SURESH KUMAR Vs. COLLECTOR, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON July 30, 19993 the Gram Panchayat village Rithal Phogat auctioned ponds in an area of 12 acres for fish farming at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per year. The petitioner being the highest bidder was given a lease for 10 years. The action of the panchayat was challenged by respondent No. 3. It was pleaded that the ponds had been given at a very low rate. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, examined the matter. In exercise of his power under Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 he found that the panchayat had not given proper notice and that the auction was not for the full value of the property. Thus, the lease was cancelled vide order dated August, 13, 1998. A copy of this order has been placed on the record as Annexure P-3. The petitioner felt aggrieved. He filed an appeal. Vide order dated November 24, 1998 the Collector has dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner prays that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P3 and P5 respectively, be quashed.

(3.) MR . Tacoria, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the lease rights had been given in an open auction. The lease was for a period of 10 years. On the faith of the representation made by the respondent-Panchayat the petitioner has spent a substantial amount of money. He had installed two tubewells. As a result, the water in the pond had increased and the yield has improved. It was on account of this reason that a petition for cancellation of the lease had been filed after a lapse of more than three years after the initial auction.